Dismissed
Rajendra G. Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCAPPLN/342/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.342 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr.G.V.Bhagat for the applicant.
Mr.U.V.Nikam APP for the State.
Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
Date : 14.2.2006.
PC
1. This application impugns an
order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the
IInd Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge,
Kalyan in an application for
recall of witness filed in
S.C.No.154 of 2002. It is seen
from the application that
admittedly, the cross-examination
of the prosecutrix-Sunanda Wagh
was completed on 30.12.2005 and
thereafter the evidence proceeded
and evidence of some other
witnesses is also recorded. On
9.1.2006 an application came to be
made in the trial Court for recall
of the prosecutrix-Sunanda Wagh.
: 2 :
The application is signed by the
Advocate for the accused and
recall was sought on the ground
that after the cross-examination
of the witness, the Advocate had
been provided entirely new
information about the age and
character of the
prosecutrix-Sunanda Wagh of which
he had not been instructed before
and therefore, could not cross
examine the prosecutrix on these
new points. It is not stated in
the application that this
information was not known to his
client prior to closure of the
cross-examination. The nature of
information has also not been
disclosed. Across the bar it is
stated that the same pertains to
the school leaving certificate
being a ficticious document. In
my view, if applicant so desire,
he may lead defence evidence. The
trial Court has rightly rejected
the application for recall on the
ground of vague application. In
the circumstances, application is
rejected.
: 3 :
(R.S.Mohite,J)
Applicant
State
R.S. Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court